Sunshine Acres Property Owners Association

Special Board Meeting

March 22, 2006

 President Dave Taney called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.  The quorum was established with 6 board members; 7 DPAA Board members and 13 property owners were present. 

Dave stated that this is a special meeting for the Board of Directors of SAPOA and the Diamond Point Airport Association Board (DPAA).  So we’re going to do things a little bit differently tonight than we normally would.  We’re going to try to keep the discussion as much as possible between the two Boards and asked that nobody interrupt whoever else is speaking, take your turn.  The people in the audience will have an opportunity towards the end of the meeting to make a comment or ask a question.  We’ll try to keep it moving smoothly, organized, courteous and respectful. 

First, Dave introduced Kimberly Jacobs who lives on 350 Madrona.  Kim has a secretarial background and has volunteered to take over duties as Secretary of the Board.  He asked the Board to accept her appointment to that duty and that someone entertain a motion.  Everett Stauffer made a motion to accept Kim as Secretary, Irma Martin seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.  

Secondly, Dave introduced Keith DeStephano and Bob Eberhard and asked the Board’s approval for their appointments to the Mussel Beach Road Advisory Committee.  Lew Morello made a motion to accept Bob and Keith‘s appointments to that Committee.  Sarah Kincaid seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. 

Dave then turned the meeting over to Ernie Hansen, the President of the Diamond Point Airport Association, stating that Ernie would have the floor for whatever time he needs to make his presentation. 

Ernie - Thanks Dave.  With your permission I’d like to take just a second to let our Board members introduce themselves so you’ll know who’s here.  Gerry Mahoney, Gary Getch, Don Verstrate, Dave Rodgers, Gary Ecklund and John Kayes introduced themselves. 

Ernie - Thanks for calling this meeting, Dave.  We appreciate the opportunity to address the SAPOA Board.  I’m going to make a brief presentation this evening on behalf of the Board of Directors.  We met with Dave recently and we asked for the opportunity to talk to you folks, and we decided that we would have just one representative speak so that we could try to get our ideas across in a concise manner and not take up a lot of your time.  In that effort, I’m going to rely heavily on my written statement just to make sure that I get everything out that our Board has discussed since I am representing them. 

Last Thursday, the DPAA Board met in an informal work session and we invited Dave Taney after reading the President’s Message in the Spring 2006 SAPOA newsletter, concerning the sale of SAPOA owned recreational property on Diamond Point Road, to attend our meeting.  This newsletter was received by most of us on the previous Saturday.  I contacted Mr. Taney on Monday, and the work session was arranged for Thursday.  In our Thursday discussion, Mr. Taney informed us that the ballots were in the mail and that we would probably receive them that day.  A review of the SAPOA Board meeting minutes of February 17, 2006, revealed the discussion of the sale of 2 lots in Diamond Point, commonly referred to as the recreation lots, and a comment, that I quote, Everett pointed out that some resistance from the DPAA might be expected.  First let’s take a look at the chronology of this.  We’re, as a Board, concerned about the amount of time that this was available to the members and the amount of time, specifically, that DPAA might have an opportunity to respond.  On February 17th, the SAPOA Board met in a Special Board meeting with 4 property owners other than the Board in attendance.  The newsletter arrived on or about March 11th with an article presenting the idea of selling community owned property on Diamond Point Road.  Two days later, I contacted Mr. Taney to request a work session to discuss the aforementioned property sale, hoping at that time to have an opportunity to let our concerns be known and perhaps have a dialog before this went much further.  3 days later, we had the work shop and it was during that work shop that we were informed that the ballots were already in the mail and actually many of us received them that afternoon.  We’re looking at a total of 5 days between the time that the newsletter came to us that informed us of the possibility of the sale and the time that we received ballots asking for a decision on the sale.  One thing that disappoints us and we regret is that we have to respond in this manner.  As stated in your minutes, some resistance from DPAA might be expected.  We’re wondering why there wasn’t a discussion initiated with DPAA.  We’re all SAPOA members, and we all have the same responsibility to the homeowners in Sunshine Acres to manage community property and trust for everyone.  We’re also disappointed that the ballot information sheet only presents the financial benefits of the sale of these properties, and presents it as a quote/unquote win-win situation for SAPOA members, even though there was recognition that DPAA might have concerns.  From our perspective, this is not a win-win situation.  We do have a number of concerns.  We have concerns for the pilots, we have concerns for whoever might acquire these lots should they be offered for sale, and we have concerns for all the property owners of Sunshine Acres for whom we manage the airport.

I think I’m correct in understanding that we agree that the corner lot on the corner of Diamond Point and Discovery View is not developable.  This is supported by the SAPOA newsletter of April 1997 when the lot was being considered for development as a community park.  And I quote from your newsletter.  The recreational lot proposed as a community park is directly under the flight path at the east end of the airport approach.  As a result, it was decided by vote of the members in attendance not to develop this lot.  End of quote.  I only bring this up because the motion made at the February 17 special meeting sought approval to sell 2 lots comprising 2 acres (Everett stated that that’s an error).  Ernie continued.  That’s fine.  I only bring it up because it is a quote from your meeting, and I do understand, I think, that that lot is not in discussion now.  So now let’s address the adjoining lot referred to as Lot 28.  This lot is just uphill from the corner lot on Diamond Point Road.  Sunshine Acres Inc. deeded that lot to SAPOA in 1998.  This is not ancient history.  I think a lot of folks thought this goes back further than that.  This is in fairly recent past.  In a discussion I had today with Helen Dent of Sunshine Acres Inc., she said, I’ve heard a lot of different stories, I’m going to add a little anecdotal comment here, a lot of different stories of how this all transpired.  So in all fairness, I thought I’m going to go to the horse’s mouth and see if Helen can shed any light on this.  And Helen said that that that lot had previously been sold to an individual who defaulted on payment and she got the lot back.  At the time that she got the lot back, she was approached by DPAA, or airport people I believe is how she said it, about Lot 28 and it’s proximity to the runway.  She recognized that this lot should not be developed for residential use.  And I guess I can say she recognized that because I asked her why didn’t she try to resell the lot and she said, well, after looking at it and hearing the concerns, I thought it should be added to the recreational lot and not be developed.  She said she offered it to SAPOA for back taxes to expand the existing recreational lot, thinking maybe a picnic table or something could be put on the lot.  SAPOA was later deeded the lot and it became part of the community property held in trust for property owners of Sunshine Acres.  The SAPOA newsletter dated Spring 1998, when the offer was being considered, is an interesting read.  Page 4 has an article titled ’Our Recreational Area’.  The first paragraph in that newsletter refers to previous discussions regarding the concern for development on the corner lot.  The second paragraph is of particular interest.  It begins, and I quote, the reason for the above background information is that we have an opportunity to expand the size of our recreation area at very little cost to SAPOA and perhaps make possible some limited use of this area for recreational purposes.  Or, if nothing else, acquire additional open space for community enjoyment as it provides a vantage point for great views.  End of quote.  It was never the intent to sell this lot for residential development. 

(Ernie passed around a 5-page handout).  This information was taken from a document titled Airport and Compatibility Land Use, Volume I, Washington State Department of Transportation, Aviation Division, Revised February 1999. I’ll lead you through this very briefly and point out the pertinent parts of this document.  The first page, titled Appendix A, Aircraft Accident Safety Zone Diagram, shows different areas around an airport.  I’d like to bring to your attention Zone 1, and I’ve highlighted that for everyone.  This is classified as a runway protection zone.  If you look at the chart at the bottom, for runways less than 4000 feet, you will see this zone extends 125 feet on each side of the centerline of the runway and then fans out from the runway to a distance of 200 feet from the end of the runway, out to an actual distance of 225 feet on each side of the centerline.  Now let’s flip the page and take a look at the map that I’ve included, which shows the airport.  That doesn’t show the runway, it shows the airport centerline and the airport property.  From the centerline of the runway, at the end of the runway, at the threshold, the width has been extended out to 125 feet and anybody can check that scale.  If I’ve made an error, I’m happy to entertain that, but I think I’ve scaled it correctly.  Drawing the line out 125 feet to a distance of 200 feet, at which point it becomes 225 feet.  A look at the map will show you that more than 3/4’s of Lot 28 is in this runway protection zone.  Now let’s look at the next page, Appendix B.  Appendix B says that under Zone 1, under Residential vs Non Residential Land Use, that I’ve also highlighted, it says that you should prohibit all residential land uses in that area.  All non-residential land uses are permitted outright subject to population density and special function land use guidelines that are above and to the right, which basically addresses other very low density commercial uses such as mini-storage.  It also states that airport sponsors should purchase the property if possible.  We think, as SAPOA members and DPAA, that it’s very fortunate that the property is already owned by the property owners in Sunshine Acres, and that we don’t have to seek ownership of this property to protect the runway.  We’re not required to follow these guidelines, as probably many of you know, because we’re not a public airport.  If we were receiving federal funds as an airport, these would be required guidelines and development of that property would be restricted.  But just because we’re not required to comply with this regulation doesn’t mean that the rationale is any less applicable.  It’s a matter of safety to not have residential development of these lots.  While we don’t like to talk about hazards association with airports, as pilots, it is a reality.  We’re fortunate to have a good safety record at Diamond Point Airport.  However there have been accidents and incidents there.  I’m aware of 4 such cases.  One was a Cessna that landed just shy of the corner lot and ended up in a mobile home.  Another was a Piper that landed short and tore the landing gear off at the east end, the same area that we’re discussing.  Another landed from the west, overshot the runway and ended up on the recreational property.  And finally the mishap that you can see on the last page, which is on the recreational property.  Statistically, and I’ve included those statistics for your review on the last page of this handout before the picture, Zone 1, which is the most critical zone as it’s closest to the runway and encompasses most of the corner lot and most of Lot 28, statistically 31% of all arrival accidents and 20% of all departure accidents occur there.  A total of 24% of all airport related accidents occur in Zone 1 on your chart, the runway protection zone.  Federal Aviation Regulation, Title 14, Part 77, addresses objects affecting navigable airspace, sometimes referred to as critical airspace.  This is another whole set of regulations other than the one we’ve been talking about, but now starts talking about not  protecting just the stuff on the ground, but now we need to protect the airspace itself.  There are ratios to be considered for glide slope and distances from the airport to be considered for placement of structures and statistically, structures and critical air space around an airport is the second leading cause of airport accidents.  I’ve tried not to shotgun-approach all of the issues that are involved with this, but to focus on the main issues of concern to the Airport Assn.  I’ve also tried to provide some supporting documentation for our concerns.  There are a number of other issues out there that I’m sure that other folks will be happy to bring up that have to do with ownership of the lots, your rights to sell the lots, voting requirements if the lots can be sold and distribution of proceeds from the sale of the lots, just to mention a few.  We hope these never become issues, as we believe that historical information contained in your minutes and newsletters, the safety concerns of and for the pilots, the safety concerns for potential homeowners there, and the concerns for protection of all of the property owners of Sunshine Acres will be reason enough to drop this idea.  We acknowledge that obtaining funding for the completion of the Beach Road project is a difficult issue, we just completed a large capital project, the repaving of the runway, ourselves, and we know the challenges of planning and funding such a project.  As difficult a challenge as this may be, we feel strongly that the sale of these lots, or Lot 28, is not appropriate and in the best interest of the community.  As someone recently said, you have a can opener and a huge can of worms before you.  The question is whether or not you want to open the can. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak more formally on behalf of the Board.  Back to you, Dave. 

Dave Taney - With that I’ll open it up for questions and start with our Board members, anybody on the scoreboard that wants to ask a question or determine some clarification.  Everett Stauffer - I question this drawing.  Lew Morello - So do I.  Everett - I paced today from the edge of the runway, not the centerline, to the closest point a person could build a house on that lot, and came up somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 feet from the edge of the runway, not the center, to the closest place they could build a house, is 42 paces.  Mr. Hibbler’s house happens to be 52 paces, or10 paces more than this property.  Nobody seems to care that this same cone goes on that side of the property.  I question the layout of this severely.  This is not a true picture.  The one that was sent around in email is certainly not a true picture.  My next question is who wrote this letter, who authored this letter.  Does anybody know?  Ernie - The DPAA Board.  Everett - Nobody signed it.  Ernie - We put our names down the side of everything that’s put out on our letterhead.  Everett - There are 3 areas here that you mention that are either not true or so misleading as to be non-true.  You talk about the corner lot.  We’re not selling the corner lot.  That’s item 1.  Item 2, It was bought for back taxes.  If we hadn’t got it for back taxes it would have been auctioned off at the courthouse for back taxes and someone would have built a lot (house) there.  Another item you had in there of your concern is that we didn’t approach you guys personally.  We treated you guys the same as we treated all the rest of the members of SAPOA.  Everybody got the same notification, you had the same opportunity to come to meetings etc. as everybody else.  It says, the development of this property represents a hazard to whoever develops the lot.  It’s no more of a hazard than to the folks on the other side of the runway.  There’s a whole bunch of building over there.  I find it kind of odd, I know some of you guys very personally and I consider you friends, but I find it odd that the only time that we see you folks en masse is to come down on our heads about something.  When there’s work to be done, decisions to be made at regular meetings, we don’t see you.  And I find that very disappointing.  Gerry Mahoney - May I say something?  Everett - Sure. Gerry Mahoney - I spend a lot of time away from here, I spent a lot of time in the Middle East while you were enjoying yourself.  I do go to functions here when I can, and I did, as a matter of fact, volunteer both money to the Beach Road and if you needed some help clearing that brush.  I will sign anything and I wouldn’t make an issue out of this.  You seem to be a little upset.  Everett - Well, I’m upset that a letter went out to everyone. . . Gerry - You sent a letter out to everyone.  Everett - . . .with misinformation.  Everything, if you look at our letter, everything is exactly factual.  This is not factual.  This is distorted.  It has a certain signature to it, that’s why I asked who wrote it.  Ernie - Dave, I’d like to respond.  I really don’t want this to get argumentative.  Dave - Nor do I.  Ernie - But I would like to respond to some of the comments and see if I can shed just a little bit of light on it.  What we had to work with is what we see.  Everett says that the corner lot is not for sale.  February 17th Board meeting, the motion, Everett made a motion that the Board of Directors send out a ballot seeking membership approval of an expenditure amount up to $5000 for the current Beach Road funds for legal expenses directly related to Beach Road, and asking for approval to sell the 2 lots comprising 2 acres.  Now whether you changed that later or not, Everett, I’m sorry.  Everett - That wasn’t what was said, that was misconstrued somewhere.  Ernie - But these are your minutes, so this is what we read...Everett - Well, I haven’t read those yet, we haven’t made corrections to them yet.  Ernie - This is what we read, this is what we addressed, so we’re not trying to present false information.  Dave Taney - Since I do the minutes with the absence of a secretary, Ernie is correct.  If you go back to the minutes and read the minutes, you’ll find our initial motion was to sell both lots as a package.  We found out later, correct me if I’m wrong, Ernie, we found out later that the first lot, the recreation lot which was deeded to SAPOA in 1992 is part of the common property turnover that included the Beach Road, pedestrian access and the recreation overlook easement, which is, again, back in 1992, I think it was in April of 92.  That’s one piece of property that was dedicated by the developer for recreational purposes.  It was never platted as a residential lot.  The upper lot that was deeded to SAPOA in July of 1998, which is Lot 28 that we’re talking about, was originally platted as a residential lot, is still platted as a residential lot and remains a residential lot.  We found out early on after the February 17th meeting that there was a much different situation between the two lots and the circumstances of how those became SAPOA common properties.  Everett - In our discussion of that, even if we sold the two, it would be with the understanding that they couldn’t build on the bottom lot.  Dave - Our initial stipulation was that if we did sell it as a package, we’d put in a binder if you will that prohibited any structure from being placed on that lower lot.  So it remained as is, natural grass and turf.  Ernie - And that’s why I put in my comments that I think I’m correct in understanding that we agree that that corner lot really isn’t in discussion.  The other comment that I would really like to respond to is if SAPOA hadn’t taken that lot, Everett, in 1998, that it would have gone to the County and been sold.  That lot was offered first to DPAA.  And then to SAPOA.  The then president of DPAA was Larry Werner and the then president of SAPOA was Sam Mrakovich.  There was discussions between those two parties that agreed that it made more sense for SAPOA to take it because DPAA doesn’t have the pleasure of being a tax exempt community organization, and that while all of DPAA members are SAPOA members, we basically share most of the same interests, that it would be taken by SAPOA, the tax exempt organization.  I doubt that this would have ever gone to the County.  And the other thing about the map, I don’t know how to respond to the map, Everett.  These are official kind of maps, I’ve made no effort to skew anything on the map.  (Ernie and Everett are looking at the map)  The corner lot here is not developed.  This corner lot is owned by ... That’s Norris’, there’s an easement across part of that that we have.  Everett - Right, that’s his lot.  And you take from here to his house is 52 paces.  From here, almost straight across, not down here, 42 paces to where you could build on that lot.  Now your airstrip is actually way over here, like this.  It says airstrip, but that’s your total...  Ernie - If you extend the centerline of our airstrip, you come out about where I’ve drawn that line on the recreational lot.  But, again, I don’t want to argue that, I do believe we’ve represented it accurately.  Everett - But all I can say is, I went this morning, Steve and I walked that whole bank and paced that off, straight off to the side there of that runway to, with the 30 foot offset and the 15 from the bottom, the closest point you could build a house on that lot, and with the shape of it, you’d have to go over probably another 20 - 30 feet to build a house on that because of the shape of the lot.  Dave Taney - Don, how good is your memory?  Don Pridham - Pretty good.  Dave - Ernie was referring to the Spring 1998 newsletter.  In that newsletter, it refers to a ballot being included in the newsletter for voters to return to SAPOA to give the Board direction in procuring or not procuring this lot.  Do you recall what happened?  Don - No, I don’t.  Dave - The reason I ask is I’ve hunted for 3 days and cannot find any evidence of a ballot ever going out.  I’m not saying it didn’t, I just can’t find any record of it.  I contacted Bonnie Knighten who does all the newsletters and Bonnie can’t find anything in her files.  On the other hand, that was the Spring ‘98 newsletter.  In the fall of ‘98, when the budget was put together for ‘98-‘99, it was included in the budget to pay those taxes, the back taxes that Ernie referred to.  In the very early part of 1999, I think February of 1999, a check was mailed back from Clallam County to SAPOA, reimbursing SAPOA for double payment of second half taxes for that lot.  They apparently had paid it twice so there’s a credit showing on the Treasurer’s report in 1999.  My assumption is that if a ballot was supposed to go out, it apparently did.  It must have been approved because they acquired the lot and paid the taxes on it.  So there are a couple of assumptions on my part that I can’t back up with any good documentation.  Don - I’ve kept records and I’ll go through them and see what I can find.  Dave - I just can’t find the ballot.  Don - By the way, my name is Don Pridham.  I’ve been here for about 28 years, and John (Kayes) is the only one here who competes with me in how long we’ve been here.  I’m probably the founding father of both SAPOA and DPAA and I’ve been in just about every office in both organizations.  Dave -  I’m not sure that everyone in this room understands the relationship between DPAA and SAPOA.  So if you or Ernie can enlighten us about what the connection is...  Don - I can very briefly enlighten you on that.  When we first came in here, all hell was breaking loose in every corner.  There was no organization of anything.  We had a million promises given to us by realtors and nothing down on paper.  And we realized, very early in the game, that it would be necessary to form some sort of homeowner’s association.  My interest in it was basically to be able to manage the properties that were promised us, that would be given to the community at large when the development, Sunshine Acres, Inc. was complete.  Also I was very concerned about how the airport was going to be managed.  I realized it was going to be a big problem.  I started SAPOA with a lot of enthusiasm from the people that were here at that time.  We got together in a big meeting and SAPOA was kicked off and running.  After a few years, it became evident that SAPOA had not just no interest in the airport, but almost negative interest in the airport.  So it became necessary to form another organization that would take care of airport problems, everything from cutting the grass to setting up regulations and safety procedures.  This eventually evolved, when we realized we were going to have to create a lawsuit to force Helen Dent to deed the airport to the community, we needed DPAA.  We were told that by a lot of lawyers.  When we formed DPAA, John was very instrumental in drawing up our rules and regulations and by-laws.  So we started DPAA as a second organization to be able to handle the airport which SAPOA didn’t want.  That was how the 2 organizations occurred.  Everyone in DPAA is also a SAPOA member, always has been.  And everyone in SAPOA always had the opportunity and still does to join DPAA if they’re interested in airport matters.  The way we set it up, the community at large would not be saddled with the expenses of running the airport.  DPAA would take care of that.  The people interested in the airport and using it would pay for it.  Now on this piece of property, if I can put in one little thing here, I was one of them that went down and talked to Helen Dent about that we have a safety problem here.  She very quickly decided, also I talked to people in the County Building Department, the people who give out permits, about what we have here.  And they agreed it was a dangerous situation.  Anyway, Helen thought it would be a smart thing to deed it over to the community, it being understood that 100% of the people that owned property in Sunshine Acres owns these pieces of property.  Dave - But they’re not part of the Deed like the other stuff.  It was accepted through a ballot with the majority and should be able to be sold the same way.  Don - But you know, it was a given from the very start, acknowledged by 3 different lawyers and a judge that the properties were controlled by the deed.  The deed says you have a portion of these properties.  When Helen Dent donated this other, she quitclaimed it to SAPOA with the same idea in mind.  Somebody could try to distort that and maybe get away with it.  But we probably have to get another legal opinion.  But we’ve already got 4 legal opinions, one of them is a judge, that it is absolutely incontestable and it is a given that to sell any of the properties, we’d have to get 100% approval from all 400 and whatever it is people here.  Dave - Of the original properties, that’s true.  Don - If you got 100% approval and it was sold, the money would have to be divided up into 400 and some pieces to give to the people.  Everett - But that’s those things that are part of the deed.  This isn’t part of the deed.  This was accepted...  Don - How do you know it isn’t part of the Deed?  Everett - Because it was accepted later by ballot and it should be able to be sold by ballot for the common good.  Dave - One at a time.  Don - I’m not a lawyer, I don’t think you’re a lawyer.  We can’t decide that.  John Kayes - I’m reading off of SAPOA’s statement to me in October 2000, for dues and assessments.  And it says under my accounting of dues, Sunshine Acres Property Owners Association must exist per the Revised Code of the State of Washington, because all 394 owners of property in Sunshine Acres jointly own the common properties known as Mussel Beach Road and three recreational lots.  SAPOA is an incorporated, non-profit organization of property owners governed by our By-Law and overseen by an elected Board of Trustees of  7 volunteers who are property owners in Sunshine Acres.  Dave said he probably wrote that, “The fact that I wrote it don’t make it right, though”.  Dave Taney - Don, going back to your question, the reason I ask about the ballot is the original recreation lot, Mussel Beach Road with one easement, the Pedestrian Overlook Easement, those were turned over on  quitclaim deed to SAPOA as Exhibit A on the Quit Claim Deed.  But if you look at the last lot, Lot 28 that we’re talking about, my line of reasoning, whether it’s flawed or not, is that if a ballot went out giving direction to the Board and the Board bought, and I use that word bought, the lot for the price of the back taxes, then the converse situation should occur, or should be applicable, that you could dispose of that property by the same process, by a vote of the members.  Don - I picked up on where your reasoning was heading early in the game, but I also think that you’ve got to prove it by a legal court, or at least you’ve got to prove it by a legal decision.  Dave - John, did you hear back from Ron Bell?  John Kayes - Yes.  Dave - John and I both contacted Ron Bell because Ron was an attorney who represented Helen Dent for a lot of matters and was involved in the quit claim deeds.  I was hoping to get a free, and I emphasize free, legal opinion from Ron, and I think John and I got the same answer back.  John - Conflict of interest.  Dave - I heard from Ron only by voice mail on Monday, but he declined to give us any kind of an answer because he felt it was a conflict of interest since he represented Helen Dent.  So we got nowhere trying that route.  If we’re going to get any kind of a legal opinion, its probably one that’s going to cost us a buck or two from some other attorney that hasn’t been involved with Helen Dent or SAPOA.  Don Pridham - Is there any feeling yet, maybe you have to have time to digest it, but is there any feeling from the SAPOA Board whether there’s any validity to the aspects of this whole situation, or a threat to the existence of the airport?  There was a comment from the audience that a house is going up on the property that had lost a mobile home to an airplane accident.  Don responded that they couldn’t prevent that.  Don - And as far as Norris Hibbler’s house is concerned, we’ve never seen any problem with that.  Everett - It’s in that same zone though.  Don - Well, maybe so, but it was put in there a long time ago ... Everett - It doesn’t matter...  Don - I think it would be worth hiring a surveyor to go out there and redo this if you say it’s wrong.  Everett - I think that people need to go walk down there and really look at what you’ve got and really figure out where you’re at.  Dave Taney - We’ve had some discussion about the letter that went out from DPAA.  Ernie and I have talked over the last few days, and I think both of us have made an effort to play this game straight. and not throw any surprises or curves at each other.  I’ll give DPAA, since it’s a group effort, credit for the letter.  We might dispute the facts or we might dispute the positions, but at least there are no personal attacks in there or totally misleading information that tries to distort it.  Obviously our ballot favors our position and your letter favors your position and that’s part of politics, if you will.  To answer Don’s question, first of all I’ll admit none of us on the Board are pilots so we maybe do not have the same appreciation for the safety aspects that you do as pilots. and I’m speaking for myself as much when I say ‘we‘. we probably do not see the safety factor as great a problem as maybe you do, but on the other hand, we’re taking Step 1.  And Don referred to whatever may be a Step 2 or 3.  Tom Pysher, who’s sitting in the back of the room, is a real estate appraiser.  Tom and I talked yesterday and Tom’s comment was that we probably want to get a certified, or a legal, what’s the right word, appraisal, for it.  Tom Pysher - You want to get a bona fide, certified appraisal on this and you want to get it from somebody that’s not associated with SAPOA like I am. 

At this point in the meeting the tape recording ceased as the recorder was in play mode rather than record.  The discussion continued for approximately 10-15 minutes unrecorded. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm.